Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Oregon » Court of Appeals » 2003 » A118555 Columbia Heating and Cooling, Inc. v. Bucher
A118555 Columbia Heating and Cooling, Inc. v. Bucher
State: Oregon
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk
Docket No: A118555
Case Date: 11/26/2003
Plaintiff: A118555 Columbia Heating and Cooling, Inc.
Defendant: Bucher
Specialty: In the Matter of the Compensation ofJason A. Bucher, Claimant.
Preview:FILED: November 26, 2003
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Compensation ofJason A. Bucher, Claimant.
COLUMBIA HEATING AND COOLING, INC., and FREMONT-CAMBRIDGE,
Petitioners,
v.
JASON A. BUCHER
and WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
Respondents.

01-00272; A118555
Judicial Review from Workers' Compensation Board.
Argued and submitted October 20, 2003.
Deborah L. Sather argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Tracy J.
White and Sather, Byerly & Holloway. Gerald C. Doblie argued the cause for respondent Jason A. Bucher. With him on the briefwas Doblie & Associates. No appearance for respondent Workers' Compensation Board. Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges. PER CURIAM Affirmed.
PER CURIAM
In this workers' compensation case, petitioners argue that the Workers'
Compensation Board committed two errors. Petitioners first argue that the board erred in
determining that claimant did not have a combined condition and second argues that the board
abused its discretion by issuing its order in the absence of a board member with the
"background and understanding as to the concerns of employers." ORS 656.712(1). We affirm.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/A118555.htm[4/19/2013 12:04:53 AM]
The first assignment of error concerns the board's finding that claimant did not have a combined condition. The board found that claimant's two conditions, a preexisting right shoulder condition and a compensable right shoulder strain, did not combine. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the board's findings.
Our recent decision, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. Ernst,195Or App 525, ___ P3d ___ (2003), decided petitioners' second assignment of error adversely to them. For the reasons stated in Ernst, we reject that assignment of error.
Affirmed.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/A118555.htm[4/19/2013 12:04:53 AM]

Download A118555.pdf

Oregon Law

Oregon State Laws
Oregon Tax
Oregon Court
    > Muller v. Oregon
Oregon Labor Laws
Oregon Agencies
    > DMV Oregon

Comments

Tips